This is fucking funny. I burst out laughing when I saw the carrot in his mouth. From now on, in this forum, whenever someone writes a post and attempts to make an argument which is patently illogical I'm just going to say:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

"Bitcoin had been transformed from an anarachistic challenge to the financial status quo, to the crypto spawn of Satan, fuelled by cut-throat greed and delusions of avarice." - MatTheCat"these people don't seem to want to stop till Bitcoin is completely destroyed and left like an old cum rag in the corner of the room." - ShroomsKit

"While there have already been some attempts to create a true electronic currency, such as Bitcoin, these have had difficulty getting off the ground. It is not hard to see why. If it is possible to imagine one private electronic currency, then it’s possible to imagine several, and there would be no guarantee that other people would accept the particular electronic money you use."

"If it is possible to imagine one private electronic currency, then it’s possible to imagine several, and there would be no guarantee that other people would accept the particular electronic money you use."

IMO this is an interesting issue that hasn't been addressed enough on this forum.

To me, there is no guarantee that other people would accept any currency anyway, unless they are forced to. Money should not get its value from coercion, but social acceptance. Moreover, even in a word with many competing cryptocurrencies, commercial transactions with anyone are possible, as long as there is an efficient currency exchange market.

"If it is possible to imagine one private electronic currency, then it’s possible to imagine several, and there would be no guarantee that other people would accept the particular electronic money you use."

IMO this is an interesting issue that hasn't been addressed enough on this forum.

To me, there is no guarantee that other people would accept any currency anyway, unless they are forced to. Money should not get its value from coercion, but social acceptance. Moreover, even in a world with many competing cryptocurrencies, commercial transactions with anyone are possible, as long as there is an efficient currency exchange market.

Yes but in the BitCoin model (which is the first to solve the double-spend problem without relying on a trusted entity) there is a massive first-mover advantage because everyone using the same blockchain gives everyone increased security compared to multiple blockchains. Without specific differentiating features it would be foolish to use anything but the most secure cryptocurrency--as a result electronic currencies will experience social selection amongst their features, but not arbitrary proliferation.

So in answer to the original quote there is indeed the best possible guarantee--a mathematical one.

If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8BVisit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge.0.009 BTC too confusing? Use mBTC instead! Details at www.em-bit.org or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly.

"If it is possible to imagine one private electronic currency, then it’s possible to imagine several, and there would be no guarantee that other people would accept the particular electronic money you use."

IMO this is an interesting issue that hasn't been addressed enough on this forum.

To me, there is no guarantee that other people would accept any currency anyway, unless they are forced to. Money should not get its value from coercion, but social acceptance. Moreover, even in a world with many competing cryptocurrencies, commercial transactions with anyone are possible, as long as there is an efficient currency exchange market.

Yes but in the BitCoin model (which is the first to solve the double-spend problem without relying on a trusted entity) there is a massive first-mover advantage because everyone using the same blockchain gives everyone increased security compared to multiple blockchains. Without specific differentiating features it would be foolish to use anything but the most secure cryptocurrency--as a result electronic currencies will experience social selection amongst their features, but not arbitrary proliferation.

So in answer to the original quote there is indeed the best possible guarantee--a mathematical one.

I think in the past before the first banks were formed people were not forced to use IOUs? They chose to do so for convenience, I think?

also mentioned in the article is a site called currencyfair www.currencyfair.com - would be great if a site like that included bitcoin. Have used something similar called transferwise (only euro-gbp) and it works great.

also mentioned in the article is a site called currencyfair www.currencyfair.com - would be great if a site like that included bitcoin. Have used something similar called transferwise (only euro-gbp) and it works great.

Currencyfair is a great site. When I signed up for an account there i asked them to accept bitcoin but they havent decided yet.